This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524

Tim w wrote on 28/04/2015 :
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524

Does that mean that we all move back to buying diesels again? :')

--
Regards,
Harry (M1BYT) (L)
http://www.ukradioamateur.co.uk

On 28/04/2015 16:46, Harry Bloomfield wrote:
Tim w wrote on 28/04/2015 :
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524


Does that mean that we all move back to buying diesels again? :')


That's certainly a spin that has been put on the news, that it will be
the end of the electric car.

Tim w

On 28/04/2015 16:44, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:38:16 +0100, Tim w wrote:

This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-future-using-
just-carbon-dioxide-water-1498524

Could that be a use for wind turbine electricity ?


That's certainly what's claimed, that you can use wind or solar to
synthesise the Blue Crude.

Tim W

Tim w wrote:
On 28/04/2015 16:44, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:38:16 +0100, Tim w wrote:

This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-future-using-
just-carbon-dioxide-water-1498524

Could that be a use for wind turbine electricity ?


That's certainly what's claimed, that you can use wind or solar to
synthesise the Blue Crude.

Tim W

It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?

On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:
Tim w wrote:
On 28/04/2015 16:44, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:38:16 +0100, Tim w wrote:

This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-future-using-
just-carbon-dioxide-water-1498524

Could that be a use for wind turbine electricity ?


That's certainly what's claimed, that you can use wind or solar to
synthesise the Blue Crude.

Tim W

It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?

I don't know if it's mentioned in that article but elsewhere it is
stated as 70%

Production is not underway, it's an experimental process producing only
on a small scale so you won't get an answer to that.

Tim W

In article ,
Capitol wrote:
It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?

Quite. Perhaps a bit like hydrogen.

Why not use the renewable energy to cut down on gas used for electricity
generation or house heating, and use liquefied gas for road transport?

Makes sense to me to use any energy as efficiently as possible.

--
*When it rains, why don't sheep shrink? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
harryagain wrote:

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
. uk...
Tim w wrote on 28/04/2015 :
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524

Does that mean that we all move back to buying diesels again? :')

It will still be polluting, (NOx and carbon particles.)
So no advantage there.

The pollution created by an IC engine depends on the type of fuel in use.

--
*I used to be a banker, but then I lost interest.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 28/04/2015 17:31, Tim w wrote:

I don't know if it's mentioned in that article but elsewhere it is
stated as 70%

Production is not underway, it's an experimental process producing only
on a small scale so you won't get an answer to that.

Even if it's 100% efficient, it only makes sense in certain specific
ways. The process takes electrical energy, that can be used direct for
traction and turns it into chemical energy that needs to be burnt to
extract the energy again. That burning is far from efficient, as even
the most efficient engine will produce much waste heat. (It needs to, so
as to obey the laws of thermodynamics.)

The specific reasons it may make sense a
It may use electrical energy that would otherwise go to waste.
We have an enormous infrastructure to use the oil produced, so it may be
better to use that, rather than go over to an electric car infrastructure.
The oil is easy to transport and store.

On 28/04/2015 18:34, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It will still be polluting, (NOx and carbon particles.)
So no advantage there.

The pollution created by an IC engine depends on the type of fuel in use.


Does the NOx come from burning the fuel with air (that is mostly
Nitrogen, of course) or is there Nitrogen in the fuel? I assume it's
from the air, in which case this artificial fuel will produce NOx emissions.

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
. uk...
Tim w wrote on 28/04/2015 :
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524

Does that mean that we all move back to buying diesels again? :')

It will still be polluting, (NOx and carbon particles.)
So no advantage there.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
harryagain wrote:

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
. uk...
Tim w wrote on 28/04/2015 :
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524

Does that mean that we all move back to buying diesels again? :')

It will still be polluting, (NOx and carbon particles.)
So no advantage there.

The pollution created by an IC engine depends on the type of fuel in use.


Unless you can stop the engine breathing air, high combustion temperatures
will produce nox irrespective of fuel surely?

Tim

On 28/04/2015 18:41, GB wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:31, Tim w wrote:

I don't know if it's mentioned in that article but elsewhere it is
stated as 70%

Production is not underway, it's an experimental process producing only
on a small scale so you won't get an answer to that.

Even if it's 100% efficient, it only makes sense in certain specific
ways. The process takes electrical energy, that can be used direct for
traction and turns it into chemical energy that needs to be burnt to
extract the energy again. That burning is far from efficient, as even
the most efficient engine will produce much waste heat. (It needs to, so
as to obey the laws of thermodynamics.)

The specific reasons it may make sense a
It may use electrical energy that would otherwise go to waste.
We have an enormous infrastructure to use the oil produced, so it may be
better to use that, rather than go over to an electric car infrastructure.
The oil is easy to transport and store.


If you use the electricity from variable and unreliable sources, like
wind farms, the fuel is, effectively, a way to store that energy for
later use. Perhaps not the most efficient way to do it, but possibly the
most useful.

--
Colin Bignell

On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:


It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?


And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking for a
market for the output.

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 28/04/15 16:38, Tim w wrote:
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524

Unfortunately it wont change the law of energy conservation.

So it wont change anything much.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 28/04/15 16:44, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:38:16 +0100, Tim w wrote:

This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-future-using-
just-carbon-dioxide-water-1498524

Could that be a use for wind turbine electricity ?

Sure, if you don't mind paying £12 a litre for diesel


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 28/04/15 17:24, Capitol wrote:
Tim w wrote:
On 28/04/2015 16:44, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:38:16 +0100, Tim w wrote:

This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-future-using-
just-carbon-dioxide-water-1498524

Could that be a use for wind turbine electricity ?


That's certainly what's claimed, that you can use wind or solar to
synthesise the Blue Crude.

Tim W

It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?

Probably £10-£12


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 28/04/15 19:35, Tim+ wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
harryagain wrote:

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
. uk...
Tim w wrote on 28/04/2015 :
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524

Does that mean that we all move back to buying diesels again? :')

It will still be polluting, (NOx and carbon particles.)
So no advantage there.

The pollution created by an IC engine depends on the type of fuel in use.


Unless you can stop the engine breathing air, high combustion temperatures
will produce nox irrespective of fuel surely?


Mmm. You can do combustion without using air.

The classic is heating coal and metal oxide. What you get is pure CO2
and metal.

Then you can burn the metal in air back to oxide and feed it back in

Tim



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 28/04/15 19:46, alan_m wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:


It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?


And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking for a
market for the output.

Its just more technobollox trying to keep the green wet dream alive.

Like all green****e, its technically possible and commercially catastrophic.


--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 28/04/2015 16:38, Tim w wrote:
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524

Since it requires a process temperature of 800 deg C it would be an
ideal partner for a LFTR reactor, since they can achieve the high
process temperatures directly.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 28/04/2015 18:41, GB wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:31, Tim w wrote:

I don't know if it's mentioned in that article but elsewhere it is
stated as 70%

Production is not underway, it's an experimental process producing only
on a small scale so you won't get an answer to that.

Even if it's 100% efficient, it only makes sense in certain specific
ways. The process takes electrical energy, that can be used direct for
traction and turns it into chemical energy that needs to be burnt to
extract the energy again. That burning is far from efficient, as even
the most efficient engine will produce much waste heat. (It needs to, so
as to obey the laws of thermodynamics.)

The main attraction is the energy density of a hydrocarbon fuel over any
available battery technology. The best efforts of 500kg+ of batteries
can be reduced to a few litres of fuel.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 28/04/2015 20:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/04/15 19:46, alan_m wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:


It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?


And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking for a
market for the output.

Its just more technobollox trying to keep the green wet dream alive.

Like all green****e, its technically possible and commercially
catastrophic.


People like you with no vision, no faith and no hope for the future are
living walking tragedies. If I was king I would have you all put socks
in your mouths so that the rest of us didn't have to hear the constant,
dismal, negative, droning.

Tim W

Dave Plowman (News) wrote

Why not use the renewable energy to cut down on
gas used for electricity generation or house heating,

Because nukes work MUCH better for that, essentially
because they work most of the time and renewables don’t.

and use liquefied gas for road transport?

We do already. Virtually all of our taxi fleet use that.

Diesel has some advantages for heavy vehicles tho,
but its better to grow that than to make it that way.

Makes sense to me to use any energy as efficiently as possible.

Makes sense to use nukes where ever they are viable.

On 28/04/2015 21:17, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Tim w
wrote:

On 28/04/2015 20:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/04/15 19:46, alan_m wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:

It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?

And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking
for a
market for the output.

Its just more technobollox trying to keep the green wet dream alive.

Like all green****e, its technically possible and commercially
catastrophic.

People like you with no vision, no faith and no hope for the future
are living walking tragedies.

Well that may be true but doesn't alter reality. Reality isn't
interested in faith, hope, or vision.


That kind of wilful ignorance is just dumb posturing. I take it you have
some kind of education? and know something about history, culture and
the world. You know that Coleridge didn't take up poetry because he
thought it would be an easy way to earn a few Bob? You know that Fascism
wasn't defeated in Europe by people dreaming of a world of ready-meals
and Ant and Dec? That the great acheivements of humanity like the
emancipation of slaves and the eradication of smallpox were all
victories fought by people who didn't accept the shallow, complacent
wisdom that said 'That's just the reality'? But still you pretend you
can't see beyond your own nose and that change in the world is driven by
the relentless petty choices of small minded people always selecting the
cheapest option. You know it isn't. Change comes about through vision
and imagination and belief in our ability to bring it about. You know
that already.

Tim W

Tim w wrote:
On 28/04/2015 21:17, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Tim w
wrote:

On 28/04/2015 20:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/04/15 19:46, alan_m wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:

It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?

And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking
for a
market for the output.

Its just more technobollox trying to keep the green wet dream alive.

Like all green****e, its technically possible and commercially
catastrophic.

People like you with no vision, no faith and no hope for the future
are living walking tragedies.

Well that may be true but doesn't alter reality. Reality isn't
interested in faith, hope, or vision.


That kind of wilful ignorance is just dumb posturing. I take it you have
some kind of education? and know something about history, culture and
the world. You know that Coleridge didn't take up poetry because he
thought it would be an easy way to earn a few Bob? You know that Fascism
wasn't defeated in Europe by people dreaming of a world of ready-meals
and Ant and Dec? That the great acheivements of humanity like the
emancipation of slaves and the eradication of smallpox were all
victories fought by people who didn't accept the shallow, complacent
wisdom that said 'That's just the reality'? But still you pretend you
can't see beyond your own nose and that change in the world is driven by
the relentless petty choices of small minded people always selecting the
cheapest option. You know it isn't. Change comes about through vision
and imagination and belief in our ability to bring it about. You know
that already.

Tim W

Change often comes about by accident or by reinvestigating an anomaly
from past results. The chances of getting this fuel process to be
economic IMO are close to zero. Very few people achieve major worthwhile
change by design. Cold fusion seems to be a good case in point. Hope
for the future comes from the young who just don't know it isn't
possible. When a process is economically sound, it will happen, until
then nothing will change. Lithium batteries are a good example. Slavery
died out largely because it was uneconomic, as much as for any other
reason. The majority of people will try to choose the cheapest long term
solution, as that's all they can afford.

"Tim w" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/2015 21:17, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Tim w
wrote:

On 28/04/2015 20:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/04/15 19:46, alan_m wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:

It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?

And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect
that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking
for a
market for the output.

Its just more technobollox trying to keep the green wet dream alive.

Like all green****e, its technically possible and commercially
catastrophic.

People like you with no vision, no faith and no hope for the future
are living walking tragedies.

Well that may be true but doesn't alter reality. Reality isn't
interested in faith, hope, or vision.


That kind of wilful ignorance is just dumb posturing. I take it you have
some kind of education? and know something about history, culture and the
world. You know that Coleridge didn't take up poetry because he thought it
would be an easy way to earn a few Bob? You know that Fascism wasn't
defeated in Europe by people dreaming of a world of ready-meals and Ant
and Dec? That the great acheivements of humanity like the emancipation of
slaves and the eradication of smallpox were all victories fought by people
who didn't accept the shallow, complacent wisdom that said 'That's just
the reality'? But still you pretend you can't see beyond your own nose and
that change in the world is driven by the relentless petty choices of
small minded people always selecting the cheapest option. You know it
isn't. Change comes about through vision and imagination and belief in our
ability to bring it about.

Yes, but it is also about looking at what makes sense over
the long haul and producing diesel that way doesnt.

If natural gas isn't suitable as a fuel for heavy vehicles like
trucks, it makes a lot more sense to turn it into diesel using
existing chemical technology or to produce it from coal
instead of producing diesel that very inefficient way.

You know
that already.

"Capitol" wrote in message
o.uk...
Tim w wrote:
On 28/04/2015 21:17, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Tim w
wrote:

On 28/04/2015 20:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/04/15 19:46, alan_m wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:

It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?

And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect
that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking
for a
market for the output.

Its just more technobollox trying to keep the green wet dream alive.

Like all green****e, its technically possible and commercially
catastrophic.

People like you with no vision, no faith and no hope for the future
are living walking tragedies.

Well that may be true but doesn't alter reality. Reality isn't
interested in faith, hope, or vision.


That kind of wilful ignorance is just dumb posturing. I take it you have
some kind of education? and know something about history, culture and
the world. You know that Coleridge didn't take up poetry because he
thought it would be an easy way to earn a few Bob? You know that Fascism
wasn't defeated in Europe by people dreaming of a world of ready-meals
and Ant and Dec? That the great acheivements of humanity like the
emancipation of slaves and the eradication of smallpox were all
victories fought by people who didn't accept the shallow, complacent
wisdom that said 'That's just the reality'? But still you pretend you
can't see beyond your own nose and that change in the world is driven by
the relentless petty choices of small minded people always selecting the
cheapest option. You know it isn't. Change comes about through vision
and imagination and belief in our ability to bring it about. You know
that already.

Change often comes about by accident or by reinvestigating an anomaly from
past results. The chances of getting this fuel process to be economic IMO
are close to zero.

Zero in fact given that there are much better sources of carbon than the
air.

Very few people achieve major worthwhile
change by design. Cold fusion seems to be a good case in point. Hope for
the future comes from the young who just don't know it isn't possible.
When a process is economically sound, it will happen, until then nothing
will change. Lithium batteries are a good example.

Slavery died out largely because it was uneconomic, as much as for any
other reason.

That is wrong.

The majority of people will try to choose the cheapest long term solution,
as that's all they can afford.

And so is that.

Capitol wrote:
Tim w wrote:
On 28/04/2015 16:44, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:38:16 +0100, Tim w wrote:

This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-future-using-
just-carbon-dioxide-water-1498524

Could that be a use for wind turbine electricity ?


That's certainly what's claimed, that you can use wind or solar to
synthesise the Blue Crude.

Tim W

It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?

Did you see the name of the spokesperson?

On 28/04/15 21:08, Tim w wrote:
On 28/04/2015 20:52, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 28/04/15 19:46, alan_m wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:


It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?


And how much energy is required in the production? I also suspect that
the "direct air capture" is a heavily subsidised processes looking for a
market for the output.

Its just more technobollox trying to keep the green wet dream alive.

Like all green****e, its technically possible and commercially
catastrophic.


People like you with no vision, no faith and no hope for the future are
living walking tragedies. If I was king I would have you all put socks
in your mouths so that the rest of us didn't have to hear the constant,
dismal, negative, droning.


I see. So its not about reality, hard technology and economic facts, its
about faith hope, and religious adherence to an emotional narrative?

I have extreme hope for the future. Hope that people like you will in
the end be slaughtered in millions by people who have discovered that an
AK 47 trumps a socialist or ecological theory every time.


Tim W



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 28/04/15 21:14, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , GB
wrote:

On 28/04/2015 18:34, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

It will still be polluting, (NOx and carbon particles.)
So no advantage there.

The pollution created by an IC engine depends on the type of fuel in
use.


Does the NOx come from burning the fuel with air (that is mostly
Nitrogen, of course) ...

Yes.

or is there Nitrogen in the fuel?

No.

Can be, Tim. AS a performance or other additive.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 28/04/15 22:56, Tim w wrote:
You know that Fascism wasn't defeated in Europe by people dreaming of a
world of ready-meals and Ant and Dec?

No. it was defeated by hard works and superior technology actually, and
a bit of luck.

Not by faith hope and vision.

The joke is that your mind set - the fluffy bunny hopeful vision - is
far far nearer the third Reich view than ours. You are in fact the
fascist dream that has to be defeated because its not actually rooted in
reality.

WE are the engineers who understand engineering, and who actually have
been creating all the new technology that you get so emotional about,
all our lives, which is why we implicitly understand things like the
laws of thermodynamics, and why they make synthetic fuel interesting,
but in the end if you can get it made for you out of the ground,
completely commercially useless.


All this poetic fluffy bunny stuff is handy to tell people where in fact
they want to get to. Science and technology can't tell a human being
where they should be heading, after all. But once you know where you are
trying to get, then the last things you want is a poet. You want a
navigator, a mechanic and a driver.

And you had better listen if they tell you that the way you think you
want to go, is actually ten times longer than the way they know.

The point in this case being the 'green' technology is not actually new
technology at all. Its old technology dressed up to con people in a
massive global marketing campaign. NONE of it works better than what it
(is supposed to) replace at all. And all of it costs more.

Do you really thi8nk that the chemical principle of reversing an
exothermic reaction like burning hydrocarbons to get energy and water
and carbon dioxide, hasn't occurred to someone like 100 years ago? And
they indeed managed to find ways to do it too?

But there was no point in building chemical plants to do it, because
fuel made that way is ten times more expensive than digging or drilling
it out of the ground?

No green technology exists without massive subsidies. Its all a house of
cards.

I've actually lived in a country that fr a time w3as making synthetic
fuel. South Africa, under embargo, made petrol from coal and from
fermented maize.

Hitler's Germany was also making fuel from coal and other raw materials.

You can do it, but its very very expensive.




--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 28/04/15 23:21, Capitol wrote:
The majority of people will try to choose the cheapest
long term solution, as that's all they can afford.

Its not even in the end a choice. A society that chooses expensive not
very effective ways of doing things will not be able to stand against a
society that chooses cheaper and more effective ways.

Europe colonised the world because it had technology at its disposal.

Give me a steam engine and a machine gun against a spiritual vision any
day, when what you want is lebensraum.


It is to be noted in this context, that its not the force of prayer and
the consideration of the Q'ran that's driving ISIL, its western guns.

Radical Islam is just like the Greens really. Cynical abuse of peoples
faith hope and belief to gain political power and make profit. And
destroy civilisation.



--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
harryagain wrote:

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
. uk...
Tim w wrote on 28/04/2015 :
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524

Does that mean that we all move back to buying diesels again? :')

It will still be polluting, (NOx and carbon particles.)
So no advantage there.

The pollution created by an IC engine depends on the type of fuel in use.

Drivel.
The pollution depends on the type of engine, not the fuel, which must fall
within certain specifications for the engine to work at all.

The advantages of this fuel is that
It can be made from surplus renewable energy.
It is carbon neutral. (Up to a point)
There is no sulphur in the fuel so no SO2 is generated.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/15 19:35, Tim+ wrote:
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote:
In article ,
harryagain wrote:

"Harry Bloomfield" wrote in message
. uk...
Tim w wrote on 28/04/2015 :
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524

Does that mean that we all move back to buying diesels again? :')

It will still be polluting, (NOx and carbon particles.)
So no advantage there.

The pollution created by an IC engine depends on the type of fuel in
use.


Unless you can stop the engine breathing air, high combustion
temperatures
will produce nox irrespective of fuel surely?


Mmm. You can do combustion without using air.

The classic is heating coal and metal oxide. What you get is pure CO2 and
metal.

Not using coal you don't.
Which is why coke is used.


Then you can burn the metal in air back to oxide and feed it back in


The NOx is produced mostly in ICE.

Burning the same fuel in say a boiler, produces far less NOx as the
temperatures are much lower.
Also virtually no carbon particles (in a modern boiler).

On 28/04/2015 17:31, Tim w wrote:
On 28/04/2015 17:24, Capitol wrote:
Tim w wrote:
On 28/04/2015 16:44, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:38:16 +0100, Tim w wrote:

This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-future-using-
just-carbon-dioxide-water-1498524

Could that be a use for wind turbine electricity ?

That's certainly what's claimed, that you can use wind or solar to
synthesise the Blue Crude.

Tim W

It looks like snake oil. The efficiency of the process is not
mentioned. What is the cost per litre of production?

Almost certainly pathetic unless you start with refined pure materials
and then you have to include the cost of refining them.

I don't know if it's mentioned in that article but elsewhere it is
stated as 70%

The unstated assumptions going into that so called 70% including having
a convenient cylinder of pure 2000psi CO2 as a feedstock rather than
taking it out of the air as a real greenwash project would have to.

Production is not underway, it's an experimental process producing only
on a small scale so you won't get an answer to that.

Tim W

Basically it is Audi marketing bull**** wearing a green vest.

When they publish in Nature or with patents I will take it seriously.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 16:38:16 +0100, Tim w wrote:

This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-using-just-ca
rbon-dioxide-water-1498524

Why do you need to heat water to 800C to electrolyse it? Electrolysis
of water takes place very well at 20C, to give oxygen and hydrogen.
Maybe it's an efficiency thing*. And I would have thought it better to
capture the CO2 from coal- or gas-burning power stations than from
ambient air, which would surely be very inefficient given the amount
of air you'd have to process.

Unfortunate name for the German federal minister of education and
research, Dr Johanna Wanka!

*yes it is. Just looked it up. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-te...e_electrolysis

Steam at those sorts of temps is quite corrosive of e.g. stainless
steel. What is being proposed for transporting the steam?

Drivel.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/15 16:38, Tim w wrote:
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524

Unfortunately it wont change the law of energy conservation.


The only benefit is that it could "use up" surplus renewable energy.

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
On 28/04/2015 16:38, Tim w wrote:
This could really change a lot of things

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/audi-create...-water-1498524

Since it requires a process temperature of 800 deg C it would be an ideal
partner for a LFTR reactor, since they can achieve the high process
temperatures directly.


Pointless.

On 29/04/15 08:32, Martin Brown wrote:
When they publish in Nature or with patents I will take it seriously.

Not even then sadly.

The track record of Nature in publishing ******** is all to evident, and
the amount of junk that's been patented over the years..

--
Everything you read in newspapers is absolutely true, except for the
rare story of which you happen to have first-hand knowledge. €“ Erwin Knoll

On 29/04/2015 05:01, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

No green technology exists without massive subsidies. Its all a house of
cards.

It's cheaper to pump oil out of the ground than to recycle plastics,
etc. But there are hidden costs involved in the pumping, such as the
costs of waste disposal and the long term effects on the environment for
future generations. I think that our generation will be viewed as
incredibly wastrel litter louts.